The Presbyters Project

Print:

ER 2109

Anonymous author of the "Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" says that priests are responsible for the salvation of the others. Also they should avoid bad company but nevertheless be hospitable. The mid-5th c., the Danubian provinces or Constantinople.

Homilia 51

"Amen dico uobis, quoniam super omnia bona sua constituet eum." [Matt 24:47] Omnium quidem bonorum magna est gratia, inter omnes autem maxima est sacerdotalis dignitas, si quis eam immaculate custodiat. Nam si super omnia opera sua preciosiores existimat deus animas hominum: quanto magis credibile est, ut super omnia bona sua constituat eum, qui confert deo lucrum animarum? Non solum autem omnibus bonis suis meliorem iudicat hominem, sed etiam sui ipsius impassibilitati praeposuit salutem humanam. Ideo magnus est, qui bene regit haereditatem eius, quam proprio sanguine acquisiuit. [...] Manducare et bibere sic intelligendum est, sicut supra interpretati sumus, de manducantibus et bibentibus ante diluuium, id est male manducare et bibere. Propter quod non simpliciter dicit manducare et bibere, sed cum ebriis, id est cum peccatoribus, qui tenebrosorum actuum uitio ebrii sunt, de quibus et Paulus dicit: "Nam qui dormiunt, nocte dormiunt: et qui inebriantur, nocte ebrii sunt." [1 Thess. 5:7] Vides ergo, quia manducare et bibere sacerdotibus non est peccatum, sed cum ebriis manducare et bibere, id est sic manducare, quomodo ebrii illi desiderant. Non enim iubet nos scriptura malorum personas abominari, sed uoluntates. Nam et Christus cum publicanis et peccatoribus manducauit, sed non sic, quomodo publicani et peccatores uolebant. Nec uitium suum aliquis scripturae illius autoritate defendat, quae iubet sacerdotem hospitalem esse debere. Hospitalitas enim non circa deliciosos cibos et magnos ostenditur, sed circa assiduas susceptiones impotentium peregrinorum, ut hospitalitas nostra non ab hominibus laudetur, sed a deo sentiatur. Nam deliciosa conuiuia magis luxuriam accusant, quam humanitatem commendant. Dicit enim Salomon: "Ne delecteris in multa epulatione, nec in turpibus et modicis." [Eccli. 37:32] Ergo nec multum permittitur, nec modicum et pretiosum.

(ed. Desiderius Erasmus 1530: 737-738; cf. PG 56, col. 928, ed. B. Montefaucon)

Homily 51

"Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions." [Matt 24:47] Indeed, the grace of all good people is great, but the honor of a priest is especially great among all people if someone keeps that honor without blemish. For if God thinks that the souls of people are more precious than all his other works, how much more believable is it that God will appoint over all his goods the person who confers the gain of souls to God? But not only does he judge humankind to be better than all his other goods, but also he put the salvation of humankind ahead of his own impassibility. So he is great who rules his inheritance well that he acquired with his own blood. "But if that wicked servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eats and drinks with the drunken..." [Matt 24:48-49] [...] Eating and drinking ought to be understood in the same way as we interpreted about the eating and drinking before the flood, that is, eating and drinking evilly. For this reason, he did not simply talk about eating and drinking but "with the drunken," that is, with sinners, who are drunk with the vice of dark deeds, concerning whom also Paul says, "For those who sleep, sleep at night, and chose who get drunk are drunk at night. You see then that eating and drinking is not a sin for the priests, but eating and drinking with the drunken is, that is, to eat as the drunkards desire to do. For the Scripture does not order us to abhor the humanity of evil people but their will. For also Christ ate with tax collectors and sinners but not as tax collectors and sinners wanted to do. And do not let anyone defend his vice with the authority of that Scripture that orders the priest to be hospitable. For hospitality is not shown by delicious and abundant foods but by diligently welcoming powerless wanderers that our hospitality may not be praised by people but perceived by God. For delicious banquets indict our luxury more than commend our humanity. For Solomon says, "Do not have an insatiable appetite for any luxury, and do not give yourself up to food." [Sir 37:29] Therefore, neither much food is permitted nor a little food that is also expensive.

(trans. Kellerman 2010: 406-407)

Place of event:

Region

Danubian provinces and Illyricum
East

City

Constantinople

About the source:

Author: Ps.-John Chrysostom
Title: Incomplete Commentary on Matthew, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum
Origin: Danubian provinces and IllyricumConstantinople (East),
Denomination: Arian

"Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" (Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum) is the name given to a Latin exegetical commentary on the Gospel of Matthew which has been handed down under the attribution to John Chrystostomus. The name of the Opus imperfectum also served to distinguish it from another commentary, John Chrystostomus' Homilies on Matthew (CPG 4424), which is complete. The Opus imperfectum does not contain a commentary on Matthew 8:10 to 10:15, Matthew 13:14 to 18:35, and Matthew 25:37 to the end of the Gospel. Therefore, the commentary can be divided into three parts: commentaries (called "homilies" in the mss.) 1-22 (up to Matthew 8:10), commentaries 24-31 (Matthew 10:13-13:13) and commentaries 32-54 (Matthew 19-25). In order to facilitate the description of the manuscript families and the transmission, Van Banning has proposed to divide the third section into two parts, so that he speaks of four parts in all:

- part A (hom. 1-22)

- part B (hom. 24-31)

- part C (hom. 32-46)

- part D (hom. 46-54)

Commentary (homily) 23, included in early modern editions (and printed in PG 56, 754-756), has been identified as one of the homilies to Matthew by Chromatius of Aquileia. New fragments of the commentary were identified by Étaix in 1974.

The editio princeps was published by Johannes Koelhof in Cologne in 1487. The next one, of much better quality, appeared in Venice in 1503. At that time, the work was still considered to be written by Chrysostom, but translated by an unknown person. The first doubts about its authorship were expressed by Andreas Cartander in the preface to the 1525 edition. The next editor, Erasmus of Rotterdam, made only minor changes to the text of the previous edition, but was the first to firmly reject the authorship of John Chrysostom on the basis of the text fragments he described as "Arian". He was also convinced that the commentary was not the translation from Greek, but was originally written in Latin, albeit possibly by a person who knew Greek.

To this day, the questions of authorship, date and the region in which the commentary was written remain unresolved, and many different hypotheses have been put forward in scholarship. Stiglmayr (1909, 1910) and Nautin (1972) argued that the Opus was a translation from Greek and suggested Timothy, the deacon of Constantinople mentioned in Socrates, as a possible author; Morin (1942) suggested that the author of the Opus could be identified with the translator of Origen's Homilies on Matthew into Latin; Meslin (1967: 174-180) attributed it to Bishop Maximinus, who translated it from the so-called Arian scholia in ms. Parisinus Latinus 8907; Schlatter (1988) suggested the attribution to Ananius of Celeda. The various passages reveal the author's hostility to Nicene theology, which maintains that the Father and the Son are consubstantial. He thus seems to have belonged to a non-Nicene theology that modern scholarship calls "Homoian" (referring to the creeds of Rimini 359 and Constantinople 360). Schlatter, on the other hand, focused on the passages he considered "Pelagian" and wanted to place the author in the context of the controversies about grace. Further research is needed to clarify the doctrinal position and theological context of the work, but one promising avenue is to search Homoian circles in fifth-century Constantinople or in the Danubian provinces.

The author has made an extensive use of the commentary on Matthew by Origen (Mali 1991) but he was also using a very wide range of sources both in Latin and Greek (see for example Dulaey 2004).

The author of the commentary mentions the Emperor Theodosius I as already deceased (PG 56, column 907). Furthermore, he refers to teaching held at the Capitol in Constantinople, and we know that the "university" there was founded in 425 (Codex Theodosianus 16.9.3). It is therefore likely that the enactment took place in the second half of the reign of Theodosius II (408-450).

However, the uniformity of the work is also not certain, and it has not yet been proven beyond doubt that parts A-D were written by the same person at the same time. Piemonte (1996) even claims that parts of the commentary were written in the 8th century by Johannes Scotus Eriugena.

The great obstacle in clarifying many questions about the nature of the text is the lack of a contemporary critical edition. Joop van Banning published an excellent introduction to the planned edition in 1988, in which he explains the intricacies of the manuscript tradition. The complexity of the tradition and the large number of manuscripts (about 200) contributed to the immense scope of the edition project, which is still not completed today (autumn 2023). The research group in Fribourg (Switzerland) is currently working on the edition of Part A, which will hopefully be completed in the next few years. Until then, the text can be read in early modern editions (1525, 1530) and in Patrologia Graeca 56, which reproduces the text of Bernard de Montefaucon's 17th century edition.

Edition:

Tertius tomus operum divi Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani in quo homiliae in Matthaeum et Ioannem praeterea commentarii digni lectu in Matthaeum incerto autore, ed. Desiderius Erasmus, Basilea 1530, 474-752

Patrologia Graeca 56, col. 611-946

Translation:

Incomplete Commentary to Matthew, ed. T.C. Oden, trans. J.A. Kellerman, 2 vols., Downers Grove 2010

Bibliography:

J. van Banning, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum: its provenance, theology and influence (D.Phil diss., University of Oxford, 1983)

J. van Banning, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum. Praefatio, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 87B, Turnhout 1988

M. Dulaey, "Les sources latines de l’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum dans le commentaire de la parabole des dix vierges (Mt 25, 1–13)”, Vetera Christianorum 41 (2004), 295–311.

R. Étaix, "Fragments inédits de l’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum”, Revue Bénédictine 84 (1974), 271–300.

F. Mali, Das "Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum" und sein Verhältnis zu den Matthäuskommentaren von Origenes und Hieronymus, Innsbruck Wien 1991.

M. Meslin, Les Ariens d’Occident: 335–430, Paris 1967

G. Morin, "Les homélies latines sur S. Matthieu attribuées à Origène”, Revue Bénédictine 54 (1942), 3–11.

P. Nautin, "M. Meslin. Les Ariens d’Occident (335-430) [compte rendu]," Revue de l’histoire des religions 177 (1970), 74-80.

P. Nautin, "L’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum et les Ariens de Constantinople”, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 67 (1972), 380–408; 745–766.

G.A. Piemonte, "Recherches sur les „Tractatus in Matheum” attribués à Jean Scot”, [in :] Iohannes Scottus Eriugena. The Bible and Hermeneutics, 1996, 321–350.

F.W. Schlatter, “The Author of the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum,” Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), 365-375

F. W. Schlatter, “The Pelagianism of the ‘Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum”’, Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), 267-284

J. Stiglmayr, "Ist das Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum ursprünglich lateinisch abgefaßt?”, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 33 (1909), 594–597

J. Stiglmayr, "Das Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum: Zur Frage über Grandsprache, Entstehungszeit, Heimat und Verfasser des Berkes”, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 34 (1910), 1–38

Categories:

Food/Clothes/Housing - Food and drink

Religious grouping (other than Catholic/Nicene/Chalcedonian) - Arian

Described by a title - Sacerdos/ἱερεύς

Friendship

Theoretical considerations - On priesthood

Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL: M. Szada, Presbyters in the Late Antique West, ER2109, http://www.presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=2109